Hampshire County Council ITEM

Regulatory Committee

22 March 2006

Application for a Public Path Diversion Order for

Footpath No.3 in the Parish of Stockbridge

Report of the Director of Recreation and Heritage

Contact: Andrew Jones: Ext 6891 E-mail: [email protected]

Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980

Orders for the Diversion of Footpaths and Bridleways may be made under Section 119
of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,
in the following circumstances:-

"Where it appears to a council as respects a footpath or bridleway in their area
(other than one that is a trunk road or a special road) that,

in the interests of the owner, lessee or occupier of land crossed by the path or way

or

of the public,

it is expedient that the line of the path or way, or part of that line, should be diverted (whether on to land of the same or of another owner, lessee or occupier), the council may, subject to subsection (2) below, by order made by them and submitted to and confirmed by the Secretary of State, or confirmed as an unopposed order:

(a) create, as from such date as may be specified in the order, any such new footpath or bridleway as appears to the council requisite for effecting the diversion; and

(b) extinguish, as from such date as may be so specified in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) below, the public right of way over so much of the path or way as appears to the council requisite as aforesaid.

An order under this section is referred to in the Act as a 'public path diversion order'."

Before making the Order, Members must be satisfied that the diverted route will be substantially as convenient to the public, and must have regard to the effect that a diversion will have on the enjoyment of the path as a whole.

1. Summary

1.1 Hampshire County Council has received an application to divert part of Footpath No.3 in the Parish of Stockbridge, as shown on the attached plan.

1.2 It is recommended that the application be approved under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,
on the grounds that the diversion is in the interests of the public.

2. Parties to the Application

2.1 The application has been made by Mr and Mrs Measham of Penny Lane Farm, Stockbridge, Hampshire, SO20 6JJ, on the grounds that the diversion is in the interests of the public.

2.2 Mr and Mrs Measham are the freehold owners of all land affected by both the existing footpath and the proposed new route.

3. The existing route

3.1 The existing route begins at Point A (GR 436482 134274) at a junction with Stockbridge Footpath No.17. It then proceeds through a gate on the northern edge of the hedged lane, through the garden and past the residential buildings of Penny Lane Cottage (now Penny Lane Farm), to Point B (GR 436580 134272). The route then joins a farm track which leads south to Point C
(GR 436590 134218) before continuing south and east on a paved track.

3.2 The length of Footpath No.3 affected by the proposal (A-B-C) is approximately 145 metres.

4. The proposed new path

4.1 The proposed route of the diverted section of Stockbridge Footpath No.3 begins at Point A (GR 436482 134274) and proceeds south and east along a clearly defined lane, hedged with trees, to reach Point C (GR 436590 134218).

4.2 The length of the proposed route A-C will be approximately 115 metres.

4.3 The proposed new route will have a minimum width of 2.0 metres throughout its length.

5. The background to the application

5.1 The proposed changes to the footpath in the vicinity of Penny Lane Farm will benefit the landowner, in that the security and privacy of Penny Lane Farm will be improved.

5.2 The Ordnance Survey County Series plans from the period 1906-10 indicate the existence of a footpath or track on the proposed route A-C before the construction of farm buildings at Penny Lane Farm. No evidence has been uncovered that would indicate the existence of public rights along this alignment at that time.

5.3 The current definitive alignment (A-B-C, through the gardens of Penny Lane Farm) appears to have been adopted following the construction of the farm buildings during the first half of the 20^th century.

5.4 The proposed diversion will return the footpath to its original alignment.

6. The benefits to the public

6.1 The introduction of the proposed route will help to remove a real sense of invasion of privacy felt by users of the current footpath alignment on entering the garden of Penny Lane Farm.

6.2 Potential conflict between the landowner's domestic animals and those of walkers (which may not be restrained) will be minimised.

6.3 The diverted route follows a well-defined hedged lane providing good views across the neighbouring countryside.

6.4 The Landowner will dedicate a width of 2.0 metres for the entire length of the diverted footpath alignment.

6.5 The diverted route is more direct and easier to follow.

6.6 No barriers are required along the entire length of the diversion and the surface is flat and level.

6.7 The length of the proposed diversion (115 metres) is slightly shorter than that section of the current alignment affected by the diversion (145 metres).

7. Summary of Consultation

The proposal was sent out for formal consultation on 23^rd December 2005 to the following representative individuals or groups:

7.1 Local Member - Cllr Michael Woodhall
Councillor Woodhall supports the proposed diversion.

7.2 Test Valley Borough Council
TVBC has no objection to the proposal.

7.3 Stockbridge Parish Council
No response to consultation

7.4 Rights of Way Area Officer - Central
The Area Rights of Way Officer supports the proposed diversion.

7.5 HCC - Highways Management
Highways Management has no objection to the proposed diversion.

7.6 HCC - Environment Department
Environment Department has no objection to the proposed diversion.

7.7 Hampshire County Archivist
19^th Century mapping shows a foot path following the proposed alignment of Stockbridge Footpath No.33. The Archivist did not find evidence of any higher rights shown on historic maps.

7.8 The Ramblers' Association
The Ramblers' Association has no objection to the proposal. They have commented that "a maintenance agreement should be entered into, requiring that the hedging either side of the new path is cut back on an annual basis".

7.9 The Open Spaces Society
The Open Spaces Society has no objection to the proposal.

7.10 Land Access & Recreation Association (LARA)
LARA has no objection to the proposal.

7.11 British Horse Society
No response to consultation.

7.12 National Farmers Union
No response to consultation.

7.13 Cyclists Touring Club
No response to consultation.

7.14 Trail Riders Fellowship
The Trail Riders Fellowship has no objection to the proposal.

8. Comments on Consultation Replies

8.1 Comments received from representative individuals and groups as a result of the consultation exercise have been either neutral or in favour of the proposal - there were no objections to the proposal.

8.2 Trimming of peripheral growth along public rights of way is an obligation imposed on all landowners.

9. Criteria for Assessment of the Proposal

9.1 The Council, as a Highway Authority, has the power to make a Public Path Diversion Order, if it is considered expedient to do so in a particular case.

9.2 Section 119(2) of the Highways Act 1980 requires that a Diversion Order should not be made unless the new termination point is substantially as convenient to the public as the existing termination point.

9.3 Section 119(6) of the Highways Act 1980 requires that a Diversion Order should not be confirmed unless the new path or way will not be substantially less convenient to the public in consequence of the diversion and that it is expedient to confirm the order having regard to the effect which:

9.3.1 the diversion would have on public enjoyment of the path or way as a whole;

9.3.2 the coming into operation of the order would have as respects other land served by the existing public right of way; and

9.3.3 any new public right of way created by the order would have as respects the land over which the right is so created and any land held with it.

10. Conclusion

Officers are of the opinion that the proposed diversion satisfies the criteria required by section 119 of the Highways Act and that it is expedient for the Council to make an order in that:

10.1 The proposal for diversion of Stockbridge Footpath No.3 is in the interests of the public, as it will provide a wider and more convenient route for walkers. No stiles or gates will be required on the diverted route.

10.2 The proposed diversion will not be less convenient than the existing route. The new route (115 metres) is shorter than the current alignment (145 metres).

10.3 The proposed diversion will not affect the enjoyment of the path as a whole, as it will provide a flat surface with good views south between established trees over the Test Valley .

11. Recommendation

It is recommended that an Order be made for the diversion of part of Footpath No.3
in the Parish of Stockbridge, in the interest of the public.
The diverted section of this footpath will commence at Point A (GR 436482 134274)
on the parish boundary and proceeds south and east along a clearly defined lane, which has a minimum width of 2 metres and is hedged with mature trees, to reach Point C
(GR 436590 134218), as shown on the attached plan.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and which have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of the report.

NB the list excludes: (1) published works and (2) documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act:

File: ATJ/DIV/Stockbridge Footpath No.3
Rights of Way Office, Mottisfont Court, Winchester